Arizona Vs. Miranda Statement supression

[CdwJava]

In my experience, the chances of this being ruled as a custodial interrogation thus invoking Miranda would be slim. But then, my experience is in a different state. And while I, like you, would probably NOT conduct an interview in quite the same way (and I also currently am a supervisor of detectives), providing a suspect with a simple Beheler Admonishment is perfectly legitimate.

But, CA can be different.

- Carl

 

[nanaII]

Questioning

CdWA, have you actually ever had somebody walk out in the middle of an interview? If I were called into a Police station for questioning, I would be so frightened that I WOULD be arrested if I tried to walk out, that I would be afraid to even attempt such a thing.

One other question for anyone. If a person was asked to come in for questioning (or say you were escorted in for questioning), if during some point during this questioning I were to say that I refuse to answer any further questions without an attorney (if I started to get uneasy during the questioning), how is getting an attorney handled at that point? What if you don't have your own personal attorney, or can't afford one?

 

[CdwJava]

CdWA, have you actually ever had somebody walk out in the middle of an interview? If I were called into a Police station for questioning, I would be so frightened that I WOULD be arrested if I tried to walk out, that I would be afraid to even attempt such a thing.

Well, the totality of all the circumstances have to be taken in to consideration. However, if you were told you were free to leave, if you asked for and received a smoke break, and then were allowed to go home when you asked or were finished, then it's harder to argue "custody" for Miranda purposes.

And, yes, I have had people say they did not want to talk anymore and leave. Not many ... but it has happened.

One other question for anyone. If a person was asked to come in for questioning (or say you were escorted in for questioning), if during some point during this questioning I were to say that I refuse to answer any further questions without an attorney (if I started to get uneasy during the questioning), how is getting an attorney handled at that point? What if you don't have your own personal attorney, or can't afford one?

This depends on state law. Different states may have different rules as to whether the inquiry by a subject prior to custody invoked Miranda or not. Personally, I treat it as an invocation as it keeps things cleaner. And we wouldn't get an attorney ... if there was enough to arrest you, you'd be arrested and you could get an attorney on your own or wait for arraignment where a PD would be appointed. Otherwise you can go get one on your own or wait to be arrested and have one appointed later.

- Carl

 

[Jake648012003]

that was the point i was trying to get at. The age and experiance with the police has to be taken in account. The original suspect in this case has NEVER dealt with the police. At the most he has had a speeding ticket. I have NEVER had anyone walk out of a interview...but i HAVE had the more experianced ask for attorneys. How that is handled you either lock them back up OR let them leave until they get one. During times of dire need you would give them a phone book and wait for them to call one. If you are dealing with an appointed attorney, that basically comes AFTER the court has appointed one. (At least in smaller areas like i'm in). Besides...we KNOW the attorney will tell them NOT TO TALK to us...lol (well unless we have the prosecutor make a deal)

 

[nanaII]

Thank you..

Thank you for your responses and clarifications. The problem is, as has been pointed out, HOW do you know AT WHAT POINT this "questioning" becomes incriminating? You may simply think you are being "cooperative" by answering police questions. The question still remains that most people, including me, would never know when we've stepped over the line from being cooperative to the point where what we say can be used against us to the point where we can be charged with a crime from our answers.

 

[CdwJava]

There is probably no bright line rule short of them slapping the cuffs on you. Some states have greater tolerances for these types of interrogations that others (New York State appears to be one). That is why each event must be evaluated on its own unique circumstances.

- Carl

 

[Jake648012003]

I figured CA would be a LOT more liberal than little ole Missouri.....we have the new MO Vs. Seibert case on the books now...lol

 

[Florid-aise]

Maybe I watch too many crime shows, but I have a valid question. Is there any point during an interrogation/questioning (whatever you want to call it) that a detainee can walk out of the interrogation room, and refuse to answer any further questions if they are continually questioned even after they've said they don't want to answer until they've talked to an attorney?

nanall, I absolutely love your question. It is more than valid. It goes to the very heart of the matter being discussed here. Your question is like watching a diamond being harvested from the earth in its raw form. The discussion which follows is likened to the diamond being cut and then polished.

Thinking outside the box for a moment, I would suggest that a savvy attorney would argue that the detective escorting the suspect outside for a smoke, would be sufficient for the suspect to reasonably believe he was not under his own power to disengage from the interview of his own free will, say good-bye to the detective and proceed to leave right then and there.

See how tricky this part of criminal law is?

Again, good question.

And again, excellent disecting the totality of circumstances by our dual detectives.

 

[seniorjudge]

"...I know this person, and know he's a good guy and doesn't deserve what’s going on...."

In one of your earlier posts, you said this person admitted sodomizing the child.

Is that your definition of "good guy"?

 

[CdwJava]

Here are just a couple tidbits from CPOLS (our legal sourcebook as published by the CA Attorney General):

In the words of the United States Supreme Court, "the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." (Stansbury (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 322, quoting from Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125; Joseph R. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 954, 960.)

Furthermore, this question must be assessed objectively, which means two things. First, custody is based on how a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would perceive his or her own circumstances. Second, in making a custody determination, officers are only expected to be aware of, and take into account, objectively apparent facts. Officers are not expected to anticipate the “frailties or idiosyncrasies of every person whom they question.” (Berkemer (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 442, fn. 2.)

For example, police officers cannot be expected to be aware of a suspect’s prior experience with law enforcement and speculate as to how that experience affects the suspect’s own perception as to whether he is in custody. Similarly, officers cannot be expected to take into account the juvenile status of a 17-year-old suspect if the suspect’s appearance does not suggest youth. (Alvarado (2004) 124 S.Ct. 2140, 2152.)

Further, it goes on to clarify that the prior experience of the individual being questioned is not relevant to the issue of whether the police need to Mirandize or not. Because the defendant may later claim that he feared leaving because of some past experience or preconception, unless that fear was manifested in some obvious way to the police, they cannot be expected to take that in to account.

Thus, all because he may have FELT he could not leave, the reasonable person standard would still have to be applied - Would a reasonable person have felt he was able to leave upon request?

Neither the thoughts of the suspect nor the undisclosed thoughts of the officer make any difference. "Our decisions make clear that the initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned." (Stansbury (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 323; Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 384; Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830.)

- Carl

 

[mrcheerful]

thats very good information about when and how to talk with police. like i said in another post, people get themselves into all kinds of legal messes trying to be honest with police and have no ideal what the laws are on police questioning them. i've seen people that were innocent of a crime but set themselves up by offering information that the police never knew or could prove until they spilled their gutts. once you have incriminated yourself all you can do is wait and see what they can charge you with. its not a matter of being fair, its not the police officers job to be fair and impartial, they are out to solve a crime end of story.

 

[CdwJava]

Ideally, we solve the crime by being impartial. Since the theory is that we have no vested interest in the outcome of the case - short of solving it - the presumption is that we have no bias.

- Carl

 

[calatty]

In your hours and hours of reading, have you ever found a case in which a confession was found to be involuntary because the interview room was small or in the basement? How about based on the officers' tone? Or that he mentioned the death penalty? I bet not. Realistically speaking, a court will not find an interrogation that started voluntarily has turned custodial unless the suspect asked to leave and was told he couldn't.

 

[Jake648012003]

Well if the "victim" in this case was actually a child. Nothing more than the usual fling that happens all the time. There is less than 5 years between them, this happens ALL THE TIME. Just in this case someone got mad. lol. But since it's in a different county than i'm used to, guess they took it seriously. In MY county the prosecutor would have basically laughed it off. Guess we ARE pretty close to AR. But my definition of a "Good guy" is somoeone i'm not used to dealing with as an officer. has NEVER been involved with drugs, hardly drinks, and the only dealing with the police he has ever had was a speeding ticket or two. Not the "usual" run of the mill druggie we are used to hearing about. In fact in this case, the mother is in jail for allowing it. The investigation came from an "anonymous tip".

He's NOT a bad kid considering he has no family, and has basically raised himself. You usually don't see them turn out this way.